Kearns and Sons RS Aesthetics

Hamilton attorney disbarred

Jon Moog, state attorney for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (left), prepares to argue his case against Hamilton attorney Robert Myers (center) as District Court Judge Jeffrey Langton and his Law Clerk Jan Duffin wait to testify. Last week the Supreme Court ordered that Myers be disbarred. Star file photo.

By Michael Howell

Hamilton attorney Robert Myers has been disbarred from the practice of law in the state of Montana. The Montana Supreme Court, in a set of three unanimous Orders of Discipline issued on December 28, 2017, accepted and adopted the recommendations for disciplinary action made by the Commission on Practice. Applied consecutively, the orders will prohibit Myers from petitioning for reinstatement for a period of eight years and seven months from the effective date of disbarment, January 27, 2018.

The Commission on Practice held public hearings on all three complaints on July 20, 2017.

Myers did not show up for the first hearing on a disciplinary complaint, filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel on April 22, 2016. Myers did seek, and the court granted, an extension of time to respond, but he did not file any objections within the extended time period allowed.

This complaint involved Myers’ handling of the post-trial motions and appeal of his client Dan Cox’s marital dissolution case. In this case Ravalli County District Court Judge Jeffrey Langton ordered, and the Supreme Court upheld, a $10,000 sanction against Myers. Based on evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, the Commission on Practice found that Myers had violated the Montana Rules for Professional Conduct “by making legal arguments without a sound basis in law or fact, by defaming and denigrating witnesses and other participants in the court proceedings, and by squandering his client’s appeal by failing to file an opening brief.”

The Commission on Practice found clear and convincing evidence that Myers violated his ethical duties to his client in this case and recommended that Myers be suspended from the practice of law in Montana for not less than seven months. In adopting the recommendation for discipline, the Supreme Court noted that the conduct under consideration in this case was unrelated to his judicial campaign against Langton for the District Court seat, but that the discipline imposed should run consecutively with the discipline being imposed on the two complaints filed against him over campaign practices. The Commission also recommended, and the Supreme Court agreed, that Myers be ordered to pay the cost of the proceedings.

Myers was also directed to give notice of his suspension to all clients he represents in any pending matters, any co-counsel in pending matters, all opposing counsel and self-represented opposing parties in pending matters, and all courts in which he appears as counsel of record in any pending matters.

The second complaint against Myers was filed on July 15, 2016. This complaint involved his conduct and statements made during his electoral campaign against Langton in 2016. The Commission on Practices found, based on the evidence and the testimony at the public hearing, that Myers placed an advertisement in which he had a former client make representations about the opposing candidate that Myers knew to be false or made with reckless disregard for the truth, and that Myers also provided a written statement to a local newspaper that included knowingly false and reckless statements about the same matter.

The Commission on Practices concluded, and the Montana Supreme Court agreed, that Myers had violated the Montana Rules of Professional Conduct “by making or causing to be made statements that he knew to be false or made with reckless disregard for the truth concerning the integrity of a judge, and by engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.” The Commission also found, and the Supreme Court agreed, that Myers violated numerous provisions of the Montana Code of Judicial Conduct which applies to judicial candidates.

The Montana Supreme Court noted in its order that the State has a “compelling interest in preserving public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary,” and the Court made clear that the knowingly false statement and the false statement made with reckless disregard for the truth do not enjoy constitutional protection as Myers had claimed.

The Court ordered, in this case, that Myers be suspended from the practice of law in Montana for a period of three years and pay the cost of the proceedings. Once again, the Court noted that the suspension should run “consecutively” with the penalties involved in the other two orders being issued against Myers.

The third complaint against Myers was filed by the ODC on January 13, 2017. In answer to this complaint the Commission on Practice found that the mailer and advertisements that Myers sent out in his campaign included knowingly false and reckless statements, “including unsubstantiated claims that his opponent had presided as the judge in a case against the ex-boyfriend of the opponent’s ‘cocaine and sex partner,’ and that his opponent had purchased illegal drugs from a 13 year-old child” that had a substantial likelihood of prejudicing pending legal proceedings.

Based on the evidence and the testimony at the hearing, the Commission on Practice found this in violation of both the Rules of Professional Conduct and the Code of Judicial Conduct and recommended that Myers be disbarred and pay the cost of the proceedings.

One Response to Hamilton attorney disbarred
  1. Harry D.
    January 8, 2018 | 7:50 pm

    Interesting article. A local attorney in Ravali County Montana wants to be a Judge so he goes about circulating negative propaganda regarding his opponent (apparently a seated Judge)during his election campaign in 2016 via the internet. (Mudslinging) The negative information is such that it is intended to suggest that the incumbent Judge may not be the best man for the job, (alleging that he has a sex or drug problem and on at least one occasion presided in a case he should have recused himself from). The mudslinging was deemed to be malicious as well as reckless by 7 other Judges and even though nothing that was published or circulated (according to documentation and witness testimony) was convincing enough to voters to cost the incumbent the election, (apparently after all was said and done wasn’t even a close race). The disbarred attorney says there is no evidence that he made “knowingly false statements” and that his statements are in fact, “all true”, but when he is given the opportunity to defend himself, first he doesn’t show up and then later he files for an extension that he is granted but even then he fails to produce witnesses or testimony in his defense. In spite of these eyebrow raising glitches in his legal saga, he feels completely justified in crying conspiracy. Now, it should be a simple thing for the disbarred attorney to prove that every statement he made about his opponent at the time he made them was inspired by something he had personal knowledge of, or in some way he had reason to believe that his statements were true. As an attorney he obviously knows what hearsay is and he obviously knows what does and does not rise to the level of actual malice. I do believe the judicial system is corrupt, and that lawyers and judges knowingly deal with aspects of judicial corruption every day in every courtroom across America. What I can’t get my head around in this story is why on earth would an attorney (especially an attorney) ever think to do something like what this attorney did, (the way he did it), if he didn’t have any evidence or testimony to back his statements up? This article has peaked my interest but I am not getting any closure here. Is the real story that a Judge who won a landslide election then turned around and wrongfully used his power and influence to quash the career of a competitor? Or is this just a case of a scumbag attorney getting rightfully scraped off the playing field?

Leave a Reply

Wanting to leave an <em>phasis on your comment?